> I certainly hope that is some politicized hype printed in that article
> and not real.  

For example, if I have a copy of a copyrighted piece that I am not authorized 
to redistribute on a server and I send someone a hyperlink to it so they can 
download it, I can see that as different from sending them a hyperlink to the 
legitimate distribution outlet for the piece and I am concerned that the author 
of the article has been careful not to mention that distinction for the sole 
purpose of making it appear much more draconian than it really is.  On the 
other hand, giving a third party ANY access to my employees' correspondence for 
ANY purpose is reason to be seriously concerned as that could be abused in any 
number of ways.




Reply via email to